District Attorney
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Bruce Castor
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
The Post
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Investigation | The Montgomery County District Attorney’s Office investigated the allegations against Mr. Cosby. | N/A | View |
EFTA00016136.pdf
This document is a formal legal letter dated August 1, 2019, from Jeffrey Epstein's defense counsel (Steptoe & Johnson LLP) to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the SDNY. The letter requests extensive discovery materials including the specific identities of 'dozens of minor girls' and 'employees' mentioned in the indictment, flight logs ('use of Mr. Epstein's planes'), massage schedules, and visitor logs. The defense also requests 'Brady material' (exculpatory evidence), specifically seeking evidence to support defenses that Epstein believed victims were over 18, that victims deceived him about their age, and that payments were gifts rather than for sex acts.
DOJ-OGR-00002365(1).jpg
This document is page 18 of a court filing (Document 134) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on February 4, 2021. The text argues that the government/prosecutor engaged in misconduct similar to the 'Chemical Bank' precedent, specifically by misleading the court regarding previous meetings with a firm and encouraging an investigation despite protective orders. The document contains significant redactions regarding the judge's specific comments and rulings.
DOJ-OGR-00003052.jpg
This document page is from a government filing in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing that the prosecution did not improperly use civil discovery materials or mislead the court. The government distinguishes its actions from the 'Chemical Bank' precedent, noting that while AUSA-1 met with the law firm Boies Schiller in February 2016, no action was taken then, and the actual investigation began in November 2018 independent of improper influence.
DOJ-OGR-00004814.jpg
This document is a page from a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion (Commonwealth v. Cosby) written by Justice Wecht, decided on June 30, 2021. While the text concerns the prosecution of Bill Cosby and District Attorney Bruce Castor's 2005 decision not to prosecute due to lack of evidence, the header indicates this document was filed as an exhibit (Document 310-1) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which is the federal criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Cosby case was likely cited in the Maxwell proceedings as a legal precedent regarding the validity of non-prosecution agreements.
DOJ-OGR-00004810.jpg
This legal letter, dated July 2, 2021, from Cohen & Gresser LLP to Judge Alison J. Nathan, cites the recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision vacating William Henry Cosby Jr.'s conviction. The letter argues that this precedent supports Ghislaine Maxwell's supplemental motion to dismiss charges, as the government allegedly failed to honor a non-prosecution agreement, similar to the District Attorney's office in the Cosby case. It details the circumstances of the Cosby case, including Andrea Constand's allegations and the initial decision by DA Bruce Castor not to prosecute due to insufficient evidence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019609.jpg
This document is page 121 from a book (titled 'The Great Divide' in the header, likely 'How America Lost Its Secrets' by Edward Jay Epstein based on context and file metadata) included in a House Oversight production. The text discusses the erosion of privacy through government subpoenas to private companies like Facebook and Apple, citing the 2011 investigation of Dominique Strauss-Kahn by Cyrus Vance Jr. and data mining by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as examples. While part of the Epstein document production (indicated by file name and Bates stamp), this specific page focuses on general privacy issues and the Strauss-Kahn case rather than Jeffrey Epstein directly.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016501.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal brief or motion arguing for the unsealing of appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein's classification as a level three sex offender. The text draws a parallel to Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance's failure to prosecute Harvey Weinstein in 2015, arguing that the public has a right to scrutinize how the justice system handles 'rich and well-connected' sex offenders to ensure no impropriety or undue deference occurred. It cites legal precedents emphasizing that public access to court proceedings is essential for analyzing judicial reasoning and ensuring fairness.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016496.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal filing outlining a dispute between 'The Post' and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office regarding the unsealing of appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein. The text highlights that while Epstein's counsel took 'no position' on the unsealing, the DA's office reversed its initial stance of 'not opposing' the motion and subsequently opposed it, arguing that the Post failed to notify prosecutors in Florida. The document includes a footnote disputing the legal necessity of notifying Florida prosecutors.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016495.jpg
This document, likely a legal memorandum submitted to the House Oversight Committee, details 'The Post's' investigation into the Manhattan District Attorney's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. It discusses allegations that ADA Gaffney and DA Cyrus Vance were unduly lenient or negligent regarding Epstein's sex offender registration and describes reporter Sue Edelman's failed December 2018 attempt to obtain sealed appellate briefs regarding the matter.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016492.jpg
This document discusses the legal proceedings surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, specifically focusing on the Manhattan District Attorney's shift in position regarding his sex offender adjudication and the sealing of appeal briefs. It highlights the public controversy and media interest in the perceived lenient handling of Epstein's prosecution in both Florida and New York.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010504.jpg
This document contains pages 162 and 163 from a book (likely a narrative non-fiction like 'Filthy Rich') detailing the background of State Attorney Barry Krischer and incidents related to the Epstein investigation. Page 162 describes witness intimidation involving a woman named Alison being offered money to refuse cooperation, and mentions a private investigator named Ivan Robles monitoring visitors. Page 163 provides a biographical overview of Barry Krischer, noting his career history, awards from figures like Jeb Bush, and his reputation for prosecuting high-profile cases like Rush Limbaugh.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023011.jpg
This document serves as a timeline of events regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case between 2010 and 2015, likely prepared for the House Oversight Committee. It details the release of flight logs implicating high-profile figures, legal battles regarding the violation of victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, Epstein's registration as a Level 3 sex offender in New York, and his subsequent PR attempts to rebrand himself as a philanthropist. The timeline also notes the recruitment of Virginia Roberts at Mar-a-Lago.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024582.jpg
This document is a biographical executive summary for 'KUE' (Knowledge Universe Education), likely part of a larger House Oversight report (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024582). It details the professional backgrounds of three key executives: Vice Chairman Ted Sanders, SVP Stephen Goldsmith, and SVP Nina Shokraii Rees, highlighting their extensive experience in education policy, government service (including roles in the Bush administrations), and academia. The document also briefly references Mr. Milken's (Michael Milken) education at the top.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity